When it is said, The one, this naturally suggests that there is another, Exod. xxv. 18. John xx. 12.

immediately preceding, to call them, not the one and the other, but the one and the one. So Exod. xxv. 19. Make the one cherub on this end, and the one cherub on that end. Judg. xvi. 29. And Samson took hold of the two pillars, of the one with his right hand, and of the one with his left hand. 2 Sam. xii. 1. There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the one poor. Zech. xi. 7. I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the one I called Bands. Matt. xxiv. 40, 41. Two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken, and the one left. Two women shall be grinding in the mill; the one shall be taken, and the one left. Mark xv. 27. And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the one on his left. John xx. 12. And (Mary) seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, the one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Gal. iv. 22. Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the one by a free woman.

Agreeably to this manner of speaking, as I conceive, the Apos tle having said that the law was ordained in the hand of a mediator, immediately adds, Now that mediator is not mediator of the one, viz. of the one of the two things he had so frequently mentioned. Taking the word one in a relative sense, it is natural to ask, What one? The preceding context suggests the answer. For there two things are contrasted, the promise made to Abraham, and the law given four hundred and thirty years after. Both of these are thrice mentioned in the three preceding verses. And therefore when it is said, That mediator was not mediator of the one, it must be meant of the former or first one, viz. the Abra hamic covenant. It can be no just objection against our reading, the one, though the word vos be without the article. For it is prefixed promiscuously, and not always with such an emphasis as some maintain. Robertson on the Revelation, chap. 8. 2. It is totally omitted in all the New Testament passages quoted above, except Mat. xx. 40. Our version reads the one, Gal. iv. 24. though the original word has not the article, μια μεν από όρους είνα.

It is observable how two such different men as Messrs. Locke and Boston agree in laying a mighty weight upon the article. The

Gal. iv. 22. It would seem then, that there are two things which the Apostle speaks of here; and that

latter reads the following passage thus, “Gal. iii. 11. That no man is justified by a law in the sight of God; it is evident, chap. v. 4. whosoever of you are justified by a law, ye are fallen from grace. Rom iii. 28. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without deeds of a law. Gal. ii. 16. Knowing that

a man is not justified by works of a law." After which he adds, "I read a law, deeds, works, simply; because so the original words used in these texts do undeniably signify." Marrow of Mod. Divin. page (mihi) 258.

He so reads these passages, because the original words are without the article. Locke teaches, that the word law, (o voμos) with the article prefixed, as it is twice in Rom. iii, 19. signifies the law as given to the Jews; and that the word (voos) without the article, as it is twice in the next verse, signifies law in general, as extending to Gentiles as well as Jews. The judicious Guyse, however, justly observes, that that very critical gentleman himself, without attending to this distinction, takes the word law in one and the same sense, chap. iv 13, 14, 15, 16. though in the three first of these verses, it is put without the article, and in the last with it. The Doctor also pertinently adds, that when there is nothing in the context to forbid, the article often gives an emphasis; yet in these two verses (Rom. iii. 19, 20.) the sense of the word law is the same, whether the article be prefixed to it, or not. If the word the were to be added or omitted in an English version, according as the article occurs or not, it would make a very awkward appearance. Take Gal. iv. 29. for a speci"But as then he who was born after flesh, persecuted him who was born after Spirit, even so it is now."

men.

Permit me to observe further, that I take vos to be of the neuter gender, not agreeing with adnan or emaɣyeria in gender indeed, but in sense, thus: Now that mediator is not mediator of the one of these two things, viz. of the covenant of promise. The same construction occurs, Eph ii. 8. " By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that (thing) not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Rev. ii. 15. " Thou hast also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." If, when speak

while Moses was not the mediator of the one, he as certainly was of the other. Two very important things we find both in the preceding and the following context: Two things which attracted the attention of the Jewish people, and, indeed, divided them; some resting on the one for justification, some on the other. What are these two things? Why, just the Abrahamic covenant, and the Sinai law, verses 16, 19, 21, 22. called the two covenants, chap. iv. 24. In reference to the one of these, the Apostle says, that Moses was not

ing of two things conjunctly, scripture, as we have seen, often says, the one and the one, why may it not, when speaking of either of them separately, call it the one, as here? and in chap. iv. 24.? It is evident as the light, that two things are considered in the preceding context; the promise and the law. And though the word two is not there, it occurs, chap. iv. 24. applied to the selfsame subjects; the promise to Abraham, and the law from Sinai.

I observe once more, that the Apostle, having contrasted the promise and the law, tells us not only that Moses was the mediator of the latter, but also that he was not the mediator of the former. It was not unusual with him to handle a subject, first, by way of assertion, and then by that of negation. Thus, having said to the Ephesians, "By grace are ye saved, through faith;" he immediately adds, " Not of works," Eph. ii. 8, 9. Though this last followed of itself, he scruples not to observe it. I say it follows of itself, inasmuch as we cannot be saved both by grace and works. For as the same Apostle argues concerning election, so may we respecting salvation. If by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace," Rom xi. 6. I can with great pleasure, refer the learned reader to Leydekker's Dissertation on Gal. iv. 24. in which he strongly proves, that by the two covenants there, are not meant the Old and New Testaments, but the covenant of works and of grace. Vis Veritatis pars prima, p. 155.-182.

its mediator. He was the mediator of the Sinai covenant only, not of the Abrahamic. It had another, a better mediator, even Christ, in whom it was confirmed, ver. 17. The Apostle having asserted that Moses was not the mediator of the one, viz. of the promise made to Abraham, or of the covenant made with him, immediately adds, But God is one. Though four hundred and thirty years after having given the promise, he added the law, yet he was one in both; his purpose of design was one both, in the promise and in the law. Though the law in itself be contrary to the promise, so contrary, that the inheritance cannot be of both, verse 18; yet God in adding the law, is not contrary to himself in giving the promise. His end or design in both is one. The Apostle had observed, ver. 15, that though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. And if no man will do this with a human covenant, surely much less will God do so with his own covenant. But whatever men may attempt, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent," Numb. xxiii. 19. Say not, the law as it was added to the covenant, verse 19th; for it is not added in the sense meant, verse 15th; it was not added by way of amendment or alteration; it was not added to the covenant to disannul it, verse 17.; it was not so added to it, as to be blended with it, as water may be mixed with wine. No, it still remained distinct from it, but subservient to it, as Hagar to Sarah.

His end in adding the law, was not to point out another method of obtaining the inheritance than

1

by promise, but to show, that because of transgressions, they could not possibly obtain it in any other way. His end was not to withdraw men from the promise, but to make them cleave the more closely to it, as convinced that salvation was to be found nowhere else. This being undoubtedly the case, though the promise and the law were in themselves t contrary things, yet God was one in both. Much to this purpose, said Joseph, "The dream of Pharoah is one," Gen. iv. 25. This sense of the word one, is not unfrequent in scripture, nor in common conversation. When a person is greatly changed in dispositions and designs, he is said to become another man, 1 Sam. x. 6. He is not what he was; but continuing steady and uniform in his views or intentions, he is said to be one. Compare 2 Cor. i. 17. Esth. iv. 11. Dan. ii. 9. Nor ought it to be objected against this explication, that according to it, the word one in the first clause of the verse, has a very different signification from what it has in the last. The difference is not more than in Job. i. 21. or in our Lord's ever memorable saying, "Let the dead bury their dead," Matth. viii. 22. See Bishop Reynold's Works, p. 146.

No. 33.-Page 185.

If we form our conceptions of the gospel, from the miserable case of sinners, to whom it is sent, we shall quickly find, that strictly taken, it is something vastly different from a new, a mild, or a remedial law, viz. that it consists entirely of good tidings: tidings of life to the dead, pardon to the condemned, healing to the diseased, clothing to the